On 7 Sep 2011 16:53, "Mikhail T." <[email protected]> wrote: > > On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Chris Rees wrote: >> >> I don't actually think they've been divisive -- it's been policy for years. > > > The policy -- up until fairly recently -- was to remove ports, that *fail to build* for a while. This made sense -- if the port remains unbuildable long enough, then, certainly, it is no longer in use. > > The /new/ policy of removing ports for much lighter offenses, such as having vulnerabilities, has already caused so many objections, that it is time to abolish it. >
I consider the argument here dead; portmgr is reviewing the policy as Erwin has said. However... I find it deeply troubling that you consider buildability more important than security fixes. Are you actually serious? Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
